Question

1. Do you agree with the notion that “if a law is not explicitly designed to restrict something and justifications are uncertain, the restrictions are theoretically legitimate?” Would this apply to anything else?

Answer 1

Do you agree with the notion that “if a law is not explicitly designed to restrict something and justifications are uncertain, the restrictions are theoretically legitimate?” Would this apply to anything else?

The notion perfectly applies to prostitution and marijuana legalization. If both of these are not restricted with policies if their existence has justifications but no clarity, then having restrictions on them are legitimate. Let us assume that prostitution was not legalized and there were no restrictions, it would run rampant and people would be exploited without adequate health care concerns - this could eventually lead to a sexual disease epidemic that could affect millions. It would lead to the exploitation of women by the thousands and there would be lawless situations. This currently can be applied to the legalization of marijuana. Medical usage of marijuana if not legalized, leads to lack of control on the product quality, pricing, and access which is counterproductive. There needs to be restriction because a lack of restrictions leads to exploitation.